Patna High CourtCR. MISC./85568/2025bail granted

Sujeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-13Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85568 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-462 Year-2022 Thana- GORAUL District- Vaishali ====================================================== Sujeet Kumar S/o Laxman Bhagat @ Lakshman Bhagat R/O Vill.- Surhatha Dharampur, P.S.- Belsar O.P., Dist.- Vaishali, Hajipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjit Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-02-2026 Heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 06.11.2022 in connection with S.Tr. No. 314 of 2023 arising out of Goraul P.S. Case No. 462 of 2022, FIR dated 19.10.2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code later on charge framed under Sections 363, 366(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 12(5) of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and 4/6 of POCSO Act.

3. Earlier, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was

2/4 rejected vide order dated 20.07.2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 26916 of 2023. Thereafter, the petitioner has again moved before this Hon'ble Court for grant of bail in Cr. Misc. No. 12734 of 2025 and the same was rejected vide order dated 09.05.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 06.11.2022 and the trial is not in progress. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR.

5. Vide order dated 22.12.2025, a report was called for with regard to the present stage of trial. Report of the learned Trial Court dated 31.01.2026 reveals that charge has been framed against the petitioner on 04.10.2024 and despite of issuing summons, bailable and non-bailable warrants but there is no prosecution witness has been examined as yet.

6. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the report of the learned Trial Court that there is no chance of early conclusion of the trial in near future and petitioner is in custody since 06.11.2022.

7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for

3/4 bail of the petitioner.

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and report of learned Trial Court as well as the period of custody, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-6th-cum-Special Judge POCSO, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with S.Tr. No. 314 of 2023 arising out of Goraul P.S. Case No. 462 of 2022, with the following conditions:- (I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

(II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(III) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed

4/4 his/her criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ankit Kumar/- U T